CITATION: Gedcke v. Tulpin, 2016 ONSC 3234
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 2074/14
DATE: 20160516
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
KENT, MOLLOY AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN AUSTIN GEDCKE
Applicant
(Respondent)
– and –
DEBORA TULPIN
Respondent
(Appellant)
Rod R. Refcio, for the Applicant (Respondent)
Robert W. Scriven, for the Respondent (Appellant)
HEARD at Toronto: May 16, 2016
LEDERER J. (ORALLY)
[1] The circumstances where costs are awarded against the counsel are to be rare. See Carleton v Beaverton Hotel, 2009 92124 (ON SCDC), 2009 96 O.R. (3d) 391 (Div. Ct). The initial application was without merit, nonetheless, in the circumstances we exercise our discretion and make no order that counsel should pay. Cost will be awarded against the Estate of Stephen Gedcke. The amount sought is far too high. This is not just a question of duplication of the effort of counsel. Costs in the amount of $22,500.00.
KENT J.
[2] For clarification that is all costs including costs of this motion. Costs in the first instance, costs for the motion for leave, costs of the appeal and costs of this motion. This is the conclusory order.
COSTS
[3] I have endorsed the Motion Record as follows: “Submissions completed. For oral reasons given, an order for all costs is made against the Estate of Stephen Gedcke payable to the respondent Debora Tulpin fixed in the amount of $22,500.00.”
LEDERER J.
KENT J.
MOLLOY J. (Dissenting)
[4] In my view the claim brought by Mr. Refcio on behalf of his client Gedcke was wholly without merit and legally untenable.
[5] Through litigation and other steps he took, he unreasonably ran up the costs of the estate while recognizing that costs should only be awarded against a solicitor in exceptional circumstances. I would have exercised my discretion to do so in this case.
[6] I also would have awarded those costs on a substantial indemnity basis while recognizing that there should be some reduction in respect of duplication in time and charges for travel time. I would have awarded something in the order of approximately $45,000.00 against the solicitor and the Gedcke Estate jointly and severally.
MOLLOY J.
Date of Reasons of Judgment: May 16, 2016
Date of Release: June 15, 2016
CITATION: Gedcke v. Tulpin, 2016 ONSC 3234
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 2074/14
DATE: 20160516
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KENT, MOLLOY AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN AUSTIN GEDCKE
Applicant
(Respondent)
– and –
DEBORA TULPIN
Respondent
(Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 16, 2016
Date of Release: June 15, 2016